The San Manuel Nation’s Yuhaaviatam has been vocal in its opposition to California commercial sports betting plans and has become part of one of the strongest Indian tribe-sponsored legalization campaigns to date. 

Penning an undated letter received by InGame, Tribal Chair Lynn Valbuena warned that “the future of tribal government gaming in California is at risk” due to pressure by the commercial operators wanting more California action to “generate massive profits for them, while dismantling the Indian Gaming structure in California.”

Tribal Divide Over Sports Betting Strategy

The letter is specifically critical of the “YES Pledge,” an agreement that was passed last September by members of the Sports Betting Alliance Tribal Advisory Council. It invites the tribes to agree to collaborate on gaining voter or legislative approval for a tribally managed system to operate online sports betting.

The pledge has not to this date been signed by the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, the largest state-wide association to which San Manuel is an affiliate.

As California remains stuck within this legislative gridlock regarding sports betting, revenue continues to move out of state. Many Golden State residents continue migrating to international platforms licensed in offshore jurisdictions. So why join an offshore casino? They typically offer full sports coverage, extensive casino game libraries, cryptocurrency payment options, and generous welcome bonuses. Tribal leaders say that the longer California waits to legalize sports betting, the harder it will be to compete with these established online markets.

The Battle Over Tribal Exclusivity and Sovereignty

San Manuel’s objections are around four bedrock principles developed to safeguard tribal gaming on behalf of all federally recognized California tribes. First is the principle of safeguarding tribal sovereignty by making sure the growth of gaming proceeds follows the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act formula. Key safeguards include the stipulation that operators remit to the tribes 60% of the revenue upon which bets are made.

​The second principle is to preserve tribal gaming exclusivity, the foundation warranty California voters pledged when they voted to approve Proposition 1A in the year 2000. This is the amendment to the constitution that enabled the tribes to enter compacts with the state that put the tribal casinos on the California legal map. It also granted them exclusivity to operate Class III gaming like slot machines, state lottery games, and casino card games.

Chairman Valbuena’s third requirement is inclusiveness to allow limited-gaming and non-gaming tribes to join in any gaming growth. This remedies the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund enacted in 1999, which now only disperses $1.1 million each year to qualified non-gaming tribes. This sum has stagnated for 26 years despite California’s gaming market generating approximately $43.9 billion during fiscal year 2024.

The ​Fourth principle mandates all future expansions to the gaming ecosystem to include responsible gaming efforts with special consideration to game integrity and player protections.

Former Tribal Leaders Respond With Data-Driven Defense

Former Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Chairman and current Sports Betting Alliance tribal advisor Jeff Grubbe debunked Valbuena’s letter on LinkedIn last September, stating that it is based on “opinions, assumptions, and speculative results – not verifiable facts.”

Grubbe justified the YES Pledge as the result of tribal-initiated proceedings within regional meetings where California tribes were encouraged to take part. He also clarified that the document was not developed with any input from the commercial operators but merely by them being apprised of its contents. 

“For more than a year and a half, all Tribes realized the imminent necessity to find a solution to sports wagering. But up to now, not much has been forthcoming, and the Tribes lack an agreed framework,” Grubbe penned.

His answer refuted Valbuena’s claims line by line, writing that statements on sovereignty and exclusivity “at risk” did not provide factual support nor legal authority, revealing that the internet operators would necessarily erode tribal sovereignty. He described forecasts that the commercial operators would rob the tribal customers away as speculations, “not a demonstrable reality,” unproven under California statute, nor any negotiated tribal protocol.

CNIGA Distances Itself From Corporate-Backed Initiative

Chairman James Siva of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association has formally rejected the YES Pledge. He released a statement saying the clarification of the pledge is not tribal-initiated and cautions that its distribution can confuse policymakers, tribes, and the public.

​Siva characterized the effort as a “corporate-driven maneuver,” highlighting long-held tribal fears about the motives of commercial operators. 

The organization’s stance is to maintain the sovereignty of Tribal Nations first and foremost. They will make decisions regarding internet sports betting through a tribally driven process that is transparent and will benefit all the tribes and not be controlled by corporate interests outside the Tribe.

This is a stance that is mirrored by Ohio, with Attorney General Dave Yost urging states to be mindful of too much power being removed from government hands. CNIGA has said its goal is an Indian-owned wagering system on the ballot by 2028, but Indian Country first needs to come to an agreement on what that system will be. 

Factional infighting among the tribes is the biggest hurdle, as California’s 109 federally recognized tribes share fundamentally different views regarding timing, format, and partnership models to legalization.

The Costly Legacy of Proposition 27’s Defeat

The tensions today directly arise from the California ballot initiatives of 2022, where voters resoundingly defeated Proposition 27 and Proposition 26 in what became the most expensive initiative campaign in U.S. history. 

Proposition 27, favored by the commercial operators led by FanDuel, DraftKings, BetMGM, Fanatics Sportsbook, and BetMGM, would have legalized mobile and online sporting bets with the tribal governments acting as licensees and joining forces with the commercial operators.

​The proposition lost decisively, with 82.28% voting against and only 17.72% voting yes. This is one of the widest margins of defeat of any proposition on the California ballot. 

Indian Country poured political action committees with an estimated $250 million, including more than $100 million by an alliance between San Manuel, the Rincon Band of the Luisueño Indians, and Wilton Rancheria to make sure the measure lost.

Proposition 26, advocated by the tribes, would have allowed sports betting only inside physical casinos and horse racing venues and would also have legalized installing roulette and craps by the tribes. Although advocated by the tribes themselves, it also lost decisively because the negative advertising war between the two camps caused voter confusion and doubts.

Conclusion

The Golden State’s journey to lawful sporting wagers is still obstructed by core disagreements within tribal sovereignty, involvement among commercial operators, and models allocating revenue. San Manuel’s hardline denial of the YES Pledge and CNIGA’s unwillingness to approve commercial collaborations set the country’s leading untapped market for bets years away from resolution.